on deck INT w/R2....maybe?

[BT_Blue]

Had a play today that I am not completely sure we nailed.

R2 two out.

Base hit to the outfield. R2 hits third and heads home. F9's throw is up the first base line and gets past F2 and goes to the fence. The on deck hitter (home team is up and in the first base dugout) is behind me, third base extended.

As the ball goes past me I turn to follow it and notice the on deck hitter and F1 have tangled up. They seperate but not before the ball has gone to the fence and the BR reaches third without a throw.

I ruled the tie up between F1 and the on deck hitter as incidental contact and not interference. Did I get this right?

Second question, if I did rule INT on the on deck hitter, I would have placed the BR back at second (last base legally acquired) and not have called an out anywhere since R2 had scored before the INT had occurred. Is this correct?

Opinions would be greatly appriciated.

[maven]

This is a judgment call that is HTBT. So I don't think we can second guess your no-call.

However, I will say that if you judge INT, you must get an out. True in OBR and FED. For FED at least, you call out the runner likely to have been played on, and if in doubt, the runner closest to home. 8-4-2g

[BT_Blue]

So then my opinion that I would not get an out but place the BR back at second, last base legally obtained, and score the run would not be correct?

[NFUA_44]

Do you have intent on the INT by the ODB?  To me that's really the ultimate question.  If he did something to make the INT happen then call the INT, kill it and punch out the runner for the teammates INT.

 

From the way you describe it I probably have nothing.  F2 is chasing down a bad throw and can clearly see where the ODB is and should be able to avoid him which would be the reasonable thing to do, so as long as the ODB didn't do anything F2 getting himself tangled up honestly is his own problem, I don't see the reason or rule to kill it, and send the runner back since there really wasn't INT.  I would be good with the no call, but not with sending R2 back.

[BT_Blue]

In my opinion, on the play that actually happened, I did not feel there is any intent by the ODB. He basically put his hands in the air and couldn't untangle. At least that is what I saw. If he "wrapped up" F1 it would be easy.

It was also F2 not F2. And I do not know where either ODB or F1 were standing because they were both behind me 3BX. When I turned to follow the ball on the bad throw they were already tangled.

[NFUA_44]

I would be good with the no call in that sitch.  Although there really isn't any support to send R2 back to 2nd, I would imagine most coaches (most certainly not all) wouldn't give you to much crap about sending him back given the botched play and tangled players.  Just my

[BT_Blue]

Thats where I was going with my train of thought on the second play. Since there would have been no play had the INT not occured and depending on how far from third BR was, would have determined whether I called him out or not cor the INT.

With that said, I emailed my partner from todays game (who is also our assigner) and told him what we have come up with.

[BuckeyeMike]

I agree that it's a HTBT and I also agree that it's probably nothing, BUT.......and please correct me if I'm wrong..........but INT is INT, whether intentional or not.  There are numerous case plays where there is no intent, yet the ruling is indeed INT.    ??

 

 

From the way you describe it I probably have nothing.  F2 is chasing down a bad throw and can clearly see where the ODB is and should be able to avoid him which would be the reasonable thing to do, so as long as the ODB didn't do anything F2 getting himself tangled up honestly is his own problem,

 

I see this opposite.  ODB is (most likely) watching the play and can see the ball coming in (maybe not though).  F2 is turning and trying to track it down.  Much easier for ODB to get the hell out of the way than to put the onus on F2 for contact.

 

 

I would be good with the no call in that sitch.  Although there really isn't any support to send R2 back to 2nd, I would imagine most coaches (most certainly not all) wouldn't give you to much crap about sending him back given the botched play and tangled players.  Just my

 

Agreed.

[maven]

A couple of points:

1. Intent is not required here: the ODB is not a runner, so like a base coach he can be liable for INT by negligently failing to get out of the way. He is allowed on the field, but must vacate any space needed by the defense. I don't go overboard looking for this: the defense has screwed up badly if the ball is in the on-deck circle.

2. As I've said, the OP is HTBT, and I would not second guess the no-call. If your BU is following the ball, he should be looking at whatever happened and have more info for you.

3. If you do call INT on this play, you cannot call R2 out or send him back to 2B. At the TOI, he has already scored. Since the BR is the only other runner, you'd have to call him out for the INT. Since he's beyond 1B when called out to end the inning, it's a time play and the run would score.

[noumpere]

More kudos for Maven that its likely to be int and an out on the BR and score the run.

[NFUA_44]

I stand corrected on the intent issue, but to be honest in THIS particular sitch I gotta see something. I'm not banging the INT without knowing that ODB did something, and it could be willful indifference, to get in the middle of it. He should, and 99% of them will, see it and move but its gonna have to jump out at me.

That said, I think mavens best point is in this sitch check with your partner, he very well could have the rest of the story since your back is to a good part of the play.